There’s strength in numbers and that applies to maximizing buying power for governmental units as well. Five Brainerd area units of government wisely banded together for more purchasing power in hopes that taxpayers will realize savings.
The five units involved in the joint powers agreement are Crow Wing County, Brainerd, Baxter, Brainerd School District and Central Lakes College.
Their cooperation may inspire other units of government to join in with them. Letters will be sent to other cities, townships and school districts to see if they would like to approve a joint powers agreement for purchasing purposes.
The representatives of these five units, let’s call them the Fab Five, realize that taxpayers are more interested in saving dollars than in which government employee purchases goods and services such as lawn fertilizer cleaning chemicals or ice melt. Duplication of services can be expensive and should be eliminated whenever possible.
A similar spirit of cooperation was demonstrated by the cities of Baxter and Brainerd which recently entered into a service sharing agreement that allows them to share staff and expertise as needed. Baxter citizens don’t care whether their building is inspected by a Baxter or Brainerd city employee. They just want to see the inspection done in a competent and timely manner.
Merging cities or school districts isn’t necessary but merging services makes an awful lot of sense.
Comments (4)
Add commentHood-winked again...
{Baxter citizens don’t care whether their building is inspected by a Baxter or Brainerd city employee. They just want to see the inspection done in a competent and timely manner.}
Baxter employed two building inspectors up until this past June.
The remaining inspector is on vacation so one of the three Brainerd building inspectors is filling in for the vacationing Baxter inspector.
It appears since the only time a Brainerd inspector is needed to work in Baxter is when Baxter’s lone inspector is away for an extended period, so perhaps Baxter really didn’t require two inspectors in the first place.
Perhaps Brainerd really doesn’t require three inspectors and could function just fine with only two.
Maybe a consultation with Baxter on how they realized the value in eliminating one of their two inspectors could benefit Brainerd taxpayers or, Brainerd citizens can simply allow themselves to continue being hood-winked.
Combining their purchasing powers is a good move, but this newspaper provides an additional instrument to the orchestrated song and dance played to the readers.
Jeff Czeczok
Vincent's song and dance
'Vincent' writes:
"It appears..."
"perhaps Baxter..."
"Perhaps Brainerd..."
"Maybe..."
Concluding that "this newspaper provides an additional instrument to the orchestrated song and dance played to the readers".
________________________________
PERHAPS. On the other hand, it APPEARS that 'Vincent' MAYBE just full of himself -- and is using this newspaper forum as an instrument to spread his song and dance to the readers.
Mission, impossible to provide an opinion
{Baxter citizens don’t care whether their building is inspected by a Baxter or Brainerd city employee. They just want to see the inspection done in a competent and timely manner.}
Baxter employed two building inspectors up until this past June.
The remaining inspector is on vacation so one of the three Brainerd building inspectors is filling in for the vacationing Baxter inspector.
The only time a Brainerd inspector is needed to work in Baxter is when Baxter’s lone inspector is away for an extended period, so it’s painfully obvious Baxter really didn’t require two inspectors in the first place.
Brainerd doesn’t require three inspectors and could function just fine with only two…which can be proven from Council’s past actions.
Consulting with Baxter on how they realized the value in eliminating one of their two inspectors could benefit Brainerd taxpayers or, Brainerd citizens can simply allow themselves to continue being hood-winked.
Combining their purchasing powers is just part of their grand scheme; a disguise to the fact that it really doesn’t accomplish much in savings overall. This newspaper provides an additional instrument to the orchestrated song and dance continually fed to the readers like Mission who obviously doesn’t have an opinion on the subject and, is only capable of attacking someone that does.
I’ve reconsidered my earlier comment regarding combining purchasing powers and here’s why.
The following sentence:
{“Five Brainerd area units of government wisely banded together for more purchasing power in hopes that taxpayers will realize savings.”}
If their goal was to save the taxpayers some money achieved through combining there purchasing, then why haven’t they identified the savings acquired through combining their purchasing?
Combining purchases results in fewer employees needed to place the orders or make the purchases, so if they can substantiate this, they most certainly could identify where the savings are, based on eliminating unnecessary employees that were performing the same jobs.
They haven’t done this, so I maintain it’s only a ruse to fool the public once again.
Additionally, combining there purchases may indeed save some taxpayer dollars and they should be able to identify this dollar amount too but, they haven’t done that either.
Perhaps they haven't because the amount isn't as significant as they would like you to believe.
Jeff Czeczok